ML19317F236
| ML19317F236 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1973 |
| From: | Jennifer Davis US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Moseley N NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001080947 | |
| Download: ML19317F236 (3) | |
Text
s DEC 2 01973 5% M1 NOTE TO N. C. MOSELEY, REGION II TELEPHONE DISCUSSION WITH WAYNE NICHOLAS, CHARLOTTE OBSERVER On 12/19/73, an approximate half-hour discussion was held with Mr. Wayne Nicholas of the Charlotte Observer. Mr. Nicholas stated that he initiated a telephone call to obtain information for an article he was writing on Duke Power Company. His questions related primarily to an August 17,1973 enforcement letter. The substance of the discussion was:
j t'
1.
Mr. Nicholas asked about the content of the August 17 enforce-ment letter, particularly, the paragraph which defines for the 4
licensee the enforcement options available to the AEC. Nicholas stated that his call was triggered by the difference in this enforcement letter from pmvious enforcement letters. Nicholas was told that the AEC is upgrading its attention on quality assurance and, particularly, quality assurance for operations.
This added attention is demonstrated by the recent conferences on quality assurance which were conducted by the AEC with the utilities. The August 17 letter was referred by the Atlanta office to the Washington office for handling to give added emphasis to Duke of our level of concern for their quality assurance at the Oconee plant.
2.
Nicholas said that he noticed in the Duke response Duke took the position that many of the violations really were somewhat trivial or purely administrative and of little safety conse-quence. He inquired as to whether the AEC has concern about j
these violations. He was told that the AEC does have concern i
about the violations as evidenced by the enforcement letter.
3.
Nicholas stated that one of the items under consideration at the hearing on McGuire was the ability of Duke Power to implement a quality assurance program. He stated also that it would appear Duke's actions at Oconee left doubt as to their abilities. He asked whether the Duke performance at Oconee was considered in the evaluation of the McGuire plant. He was told that the August 17 letter related to the operational QA program at Oconee; that the 18 quality assurance criteria and the meaning and the precise action of the licensee to satisfy the criteria was not
~
a001080fy7 wov-~u
.a,
. % %ew g
.,y
.,h gpe,e w
.~
.- y + 'w g e.,t ew = e *A - s -
s m
~w,oe3-N
hb DEC E D
' N. C. Moseley I
Consequently, the inspection program I
always clear to licensees.
was aimed at discovering deficiencies and having these deficiencies corrected and also at informing licensees as to that which isBe acceptable to the AEC.between a 11censee and the AEC as to the prec for implementation purposes, it would be unusual fo The AEC a plant when it is beginning to implement its program.in i assurance program for the operating plant at Oconee and, at the same time, is inspecting the iglementation of the quality assurance program i
In both these. inspection efforts deft-for construction at McGuire.ciencies will be identified and action wi the AEC to assure that deficiencies are corrected.
I Nicholas stated that many of the items of noncompliance listed in In look-t the August 17 letter are categorized as Severity Level 2.
4.
ing at the definition of Severity Level 2, this relates to a possible hazard to the public and Nicholas said if all these items were really possible hazards to the public he finds the information quite frighten Davis told Nicholas that he must also consider the time That by categorizing these items of noncompliance as ing.
1 Severtty Level 2, the Regulatory Operations Directorate wanted to the hazard.
differentiate from immediate hazards and from items which we of significant consequence.
This does not mean for Level 2 that, unless the item is corrected promptly, an accident or a hazard to the public will appear the nextj day but, rather, it means that if the item were to The categorization basically was an attempt to prevent i
all items of violation from appearing to be of the same significance.
the public.
Nicholas stated he has the staff ssignment with the Observer __ to keep an eye on the Oconce plant and he is concerned about the dela 5.
between the inspection time and his access to an inspection report.
He stated that the Public Document Room was of little val Davis told Nicholas that there 2
from the standpoint of timelir.ess.
is a monthly report issued by Regulatory Operations which briefly expresses the results of any inspection conducted against the fac Nicholas evidenced interest in this document j
in the previous month.
and Davis told him that he would see that the Charlotte Obser Davis also discussed placed on the mailing list for the document.
with Nicholas briefly the AEC position on press releases for unusual occurrences.
i w%% :
- ' * **
- NN w %#,jg 4-e
,w,
--w--,-,
,>-w--
DEC 2 c F s o
.. N. C. Moseley Nicholas asked whether Duke was a typical utility or untypical.
6.
He stated that all our correspondence is quite negative and that he has a difficult time in placing proportion on the real situation at Duke and, particularly, on whether there is a real and immediate Davis told Nicholas that if there were a real and safety problem.
immediate. safety problem, the AEC has mechanisms to take care of this situation and the AEC would assure that the problem was removed or that operations would cease. Davis said, however, that he did not want to minimize the seriousness of which we view the situation at Duke with regard to the implementation of quality assurance for We do consider it a significant matter as evidenced by operations.
the fact that the enforcement correspondence is signed from Headquarters.
However, Duke is not the only utility for which enforcement correspondence is signed at the Headquarters level.
In answer to Nicholas' question, Davis said that we are satisfied with the response which we have received
- However, from Duke, in reply to the August 17 letter, as a commitment.
our inspection efforts will assure that these commitments are being i
Nicholas inquired as to whether any of the citations in the met.
Davis August 17 letter were significantly more important than others.
told him that the citation against Criterion II would be viewed as This relates to the perfomance having high significance with the AEC.
Davis told of the Review Committee in a mamer other than as mquired.
Nicholas that the Review Comittee is considered to be an important body as used by Duke and that we look upon the Comittee as having the j
collective expertise of its members and that, when problems are considered, the proper expertise should be available for consideration of the problem.
The conversation ended with Nicholas expressing high interest in receiving the monthly report. Davis assurred Nicholas that he would receive the report.
8 John G. Davis cc:
D. F. Knuth, R0 F. L. Ingram IS
.R01DDE0....
omca.
,.[
J4O -
I Y*
!. ~
sum mier >
.lELL 'ik l-4:
=n>
ero
.aa-no-stess-a eas-ets Pons AEC-SIS (Rev.9-S$) ABCM ONO g
y
.,--_y
.v-..-
v
,y
-